One of the reasons for running to a CCCS back in November was a letter which I received by Gulf State Credit Litigation Network (CA who was collecting on behalf of Citibank) The first letter read like this: Dear bornlooser (how I felt at the time) "Our client is considering filing a lawsuit against you. The legal action would seek a judgment to collect the entire balance shown above (8k.) It is definetly in your best interest to avoid litigation...we are offering a choice of payment plans. 1. (payment in full at 80% of balance) 2. (4 payments in 30 day intervals at 100%) Please contact us as soon as possible. Unless you dispute the validity of the debt withing 30 days...." Off course I did nothing but called very concerned of the potential lawsuit, DID NOT REQUEST VALIDATION. 30 DAYS LATER I get a NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE "Dear Mr. Bornlooser OSI Collection Services Inc recently sent you a choice of special payment plans for the account noted above. Because you have not responded to OSI Collection Services, OC will be forwarding your account to an attourney to file a lawsuit and seek a judgement against you for the full amount you owe WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THIS LETTER" Looking back at it now, I noticed that the CA names on each letter were different (WTF?) Do you think I was close to being sued as it appears? Could a request to validate helped stop the lawsuit process you think? A least it could have bought me time for another min 30 days? I hope the post is helpfull in any way to some of you. Any feedback on it would be greatly appreciated.
First - I've never gotten this far with a CA, I will give you my take on it, but please!!!! wait for other opinions from more experienced as well. 1. If they don't hand over this account to an attorney, they have made false threats of legal action. 2. I would send a validation letter immediately. I think I would also ask for proof that OSI has contacted you previously. Gulf States and OSI are one in the same, but you are the uneducated consumer...you don't know that. 3. Look thru the FDCPA Opinion letters. They are several on this subject, for the life of me though, I can't recall which ones. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm
Jlynn, Thanks for the reply. I am trying to educate other newbies (I am also one myself.) on what can happen early in the game. For Citibank 8K is worth suing over apparantly. But if you read on my earlier posts, my CCCS rep managed to get Citibank to recall the account back. The CA is 100% out of the picture. I still think I was close to getting sued, and my only defense would have been to file an ANSWER WITH THE COURT once I gotten served.
Ok, although no personal experience with them, OSI/Gulf States, and all their other business names are a bunch of snakes from what I've read. If it were me, whether it really makes sense or not, I would send validation to them just to be double double sure you have a leg to stand on if they put it on your CR. I'm paranoid.
Re: Bluff or true intent to sue by That is a clear cut violation and I say you should have taken it to a federal law suit and you still have every right and grounds to do so. In my personal opinion that seems to be borne out by FTC and quite a few law suits already. I say go see an attorney if need be and lay it on them without further ado.
Re: Bluff or true intent to sue by Thanks a bunch on the advice. Bill, You think I have a case huh? I will start looking for an attorney and see what their take is. At the least, I need to send the CA a validation letter, and wait for my CRs to see if they submitted a negative tradeline. I've never ever sued anybody, and have a lot to learn about the subject but I might as well be metally and emotionally prepared for this since others can sue me without double hesitating.
Re: Bluff or true intent to sue by SEE #5 § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof. (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or (B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt. (3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney. (4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action. (5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. (6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to -- (A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or (B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this title. (7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer. (8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. (9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval. (10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer. (11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action. (12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value. (13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process. (14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization. (15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer. (16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act. WALLST
Re: Bluff or true intent to sue by Also, if going to see an attorney, you may have to educate him somewhat. Since this letter is from OSI, IMHO, they failed the mini-miranda.
